Comparison of fasting capillary glucose variability between insulin glargine and NPH

Needle-free injection of basal insulin improves fasting glucose variability as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring in T2DM: a prospective randomized multicenter open-label crossover study

BACKGROUND

Fasting glucose variability (FGV) extensively promotes the onset and development of diabetic complications. This study aimed to evaluate the FGV in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients administered basal insulin using a needle-free insulin injector (NFII).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective randomized multicenter open-label crossover study. We randomly assigned 48 T2DM patients to receive basal insulin by NFII or conventional insulin pen (CIP) for 7-14 days and were then crossed over after washout. We conducted continuous glucose monitoring to investigate the FGV, our primary outcome was a composite parameter of the FGV with a fasting blood glucose target between 4.4 and 6.1 mmol/L.

RESULTS

The coefficient of variation for sensor glucose at 6 a.m. with CIP was 11.67 (8.70,14.81)% vs. 9.48 (6.48,12.24)% with NFII (p = 0.003), and the coefficient of variation for mean sensor glucose at 5-6 a.m. with CIP was 12.70 (9.17,16.56)% vs. 9.23 (7.01,11.98)% with NFII (p < 0.001). The overall basal insulin dosage with CIP injection was 18.00 (16.00, 20.00) IU vs. 16.00 (12.00, 19.00) IU during NFII (p < 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CIP, the use of the NFII to inject basal insulin improved FGV in T2DM.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.chictr.org.cn Identifier is ChiCTR2000034674.

Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to present the current evidence base with respect to the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) compared to other insulins in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled clinical trials databases was performed to identify studies published up to September 30, 2020 that compared the effects of Gla-100 to that of other insulin regimens in people with T2DM. Relevant information pertaining to the predefined outcomes of interest was extracted. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change and response rates along with overall hypoglycemia incidence were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies (63 interventional and 16 non-interventional) in which Gla-100 was either initiated in previously insulin-naïve patients (n = 57) or used in an intensified regimen (n = 22) were identified and evaluated. In insulin-naïve patients, most studies demonstrated that Gla-100 was significantly better compared with premixed insulins and similar compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations, and other first-generation basal insulins in terms of the primary efficacy parameters. Overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with NPH, premixed, coformulation, and other first-generation basal insulins and significantly higher compared with second-generation basal insulins. In studies with intensified regimens, efficacy outcomes with Gla-100 were significantly better compared with insulin detemir (IDet); similar compared with NPH, second-generation basal insulins, co-formulations; and with premixed insulins. In these studies, overall hypoglycemia risk with Gla-100 was significantly lower compared with IDet and comparable to NPH, premixed insulins, co-formulations, and second-generation basal insulins. In addition, most intensification studies also revealed a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla-100-based regimens versus NPH and premixed insulins and a significantly greater risk compared to second-generation basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence presented in this review suggests that Gla-100 is an effective option for both insulin initiation and intensification strategies used in the management of T2DM.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Glargine and Insulin Detemir in the Basal Regimen for Naïve Insulin Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in Malaysia

Objective

To compare the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogue (LAIA) (insulin Detemir and insulin Glargine) versus NPH insulin in the basal insulin regime for naïve insulin T2DM Malaysian patients.

Methods

The UKPDS-Outcome Model version 2.0 (UKPDS-OM2) was used to evaluate the cost and consequence of diabetes-related complication. The effectiveness of the insulin was derived from the literature review, and the patients’ epidemiology characteristics were retrieved from the Malaysian Diabetes Registry. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Another simple mathematical model was used to compare the benefit of reducing the hypoglycemia events between LAIA and NPH insulin. The outputs of the models were combined to obtain the final result. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainties.

Results

The net cost difference (without accounting for hypoglycemia) was RM4868 for insulin Glargine and RM6026 for insulin Detemir. The saving from preventing severe hypoglycemia was RM4377 for insulin Glargine and RM12,753 for insulin Detemir. The total additional QALY gained from insulin Glargine was 0.1317 and from insulin Detemir was 0.8376. The sensitivity analysis shows the discount rate, and drug acquisition cost may affect the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value.

Conclusion

Both insulin Detemir and Glargine are cost-effective compared to NPH insulin for T2DM patients, especially when the benefit of reducing the hypoglycemia event rate is taken into account.

Glucose variability for cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

Aims

It is consensus that glucose variability (GV) plays an important role in maccomplications of type 2 diabetes, but whether GV has a causal role is not yet clear for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study sought to explore the effect on GV for CVD risk factors with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

The systematic literature search was performed to identify all GV and CVD risk factors, including total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride (TG), HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), Body Mass Index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), High-Sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), Homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). Preferred Reporting Items was synthesized for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses guideline. And the pooled analyses were undertaken using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Twenty two studies were included with a total of 1143 patients in high glucose variability group (HGVG) and 1275 patients low glucose variability group (LGVG). Among these selected CVD risk factors, HOMA-IR and reduced IMT were affected by GV. HOMA-IR level was significantly lower in LGVG than in HGVG (MD = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.91, P = 0.0004), with evidence of heterogeneity between studies (I² = 0%; P = 0.47).

Reduced IMT level was significantly lower in LGVG than in HGVG (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.47, P = 0.003), with evidence of heterogeneity between studies (I² = 0%; P = 0.48). However, the others were no significant statistical difference.

Conclusions

Among these selected CVD risk factors in type 2 diabetes, minimizing GV could improve insulin resistance and reduced IMT, consistent with a lowering in risk of CVD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40200-017-0323-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lower incidence of macrovascular complications in patients on insulin glargine versus those on basal human insulins: a population-based cohort study in Italy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the use of insulin glargine and intermediate/long-acting human insulin (HI) in relation to the incidence of complications in diabetic patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A population-based cohort study was conducted using administrative data from four local health authorities in the Abruzzo Region (900,000 inhabitants). Diabetic patients without macrovascular diseases and treated with either intermediate/long-acting HI or glargine were followed for 3-years; the incidence of diabetic (macrovascular, microvascular and metabolic) complications was ascertained by hospital discharge claims and estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Propensity score (PS) matching was also used to adjust for significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 1921 diabetic patients were included: 744 intermediate/long-acting HI and 1177 glargine users. During the 3-year follow-up, 209 (28.1%) incident events of any diabetic complication occurred in the intermediate/long-acting HI and 159 (13.5%) in the glargine group. After adjustment for covariates, glargine users had an HR (95% CI) of 0.57 (0.44-0.74) for any diabetic complication and HRs of 0.61 (0.44-0.84), 0.58 (0.33-1.04) and 0.35 (0.18-0.70) for macrovascular, microvascular and metabolic complications, respectively, compared to intermediate/long-acting HI users. PS analyses supported these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of glargine is associated with a lower risk of macrovascular complications compared with traditional basal insulins. However, limitations inherent to the study design including the short length of observation and the lack of data on metabolic control or diabetes duration, do not allow us to consider this association as a proof of causality.

International Forum for the Advancement of Diabetes Research and Care, April 29-30, 2011, Athens, Greece

The International Forum for the Advancement of Diabetes Research and Care brought together distinguished international experts in diabetes to discuss diverse trends and emerging issues in diabetes therapy and management. The plenary sessions on the first day focused on trends in insulin therapy, the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in diabetes treatment, the relationship between diabetes and cardiovascular risk, and the challenges associated with the development of clinically relevant treatment guidelines. Interactive breakout sessions addressed the following topics: microvascular complications of diabetes; the need for a team approach to patient education; optimal management of Asian people with diabetes; the role of continuous glucose monitoring in assessing glucose variability; and lessons learned from biosimilar drugs. The plenary sessions on the second day covered self-monitoring of blood glucose, treatment and prevention of type 1 diabetes, and future directions for diabetes therapy. The meeting represented an excellent forum for the presentation of new research and the exchange of ideas aimed at improving outcomes for people with diabetes.